Objective review of the US 2012 Presidential and Congressional general campaign

[Florestan]

I don't even tend to read this thread, but - Florestan, I am deeply, deeply sorry, but I just couldn't resist:

I think you mean pedantic

Please forgive me

Pedantic it is indeed --- and so are you. 

(You're right. Actually I thought about it too but seeing that the automatic spellchecker did not signal anything wrong with "pedant" I kept it as such, without thinking about the difference between a noun and its adjective. I can offer two excuses: it was late in the evening when I posted and English is not my native language* --- so please have mercy.  )

(* In Romanian both the noun and the adjective have the form "pedant", therefore the confusion.)

[Luke]

I know, and if my Romanian was existent at all I'd have more right to comment! But it was too delicious to resist. I apologise again, though!

[Florestan]

I know, and if my Romanian was existent at all I'd have more right to comment! But it was too delicious to resist. I apologise again, though!

Oh don't worry, I didn't mind at all.

[Karl Henning]

I don't even tend to read this thread, but - Florestan, I am deeply, deeply sorry, but I just couldn't resist:

I think you mean pedantic

Please forgive me

Surgically done, dear fellow!

[Karl Henning]

Oh don't worry, I didn't mind at all.

I knew you'd read that in the right spirit.

[Florestan]

I knew you'd read that in the right spirit.

Well yes because probably I myself wouldn't have let that admittedly great opportunity pass. 

Besides, being corrected by native English speakers helps me to improve my own command of the language and is certainly a positive thing for me.

[Todd]

Yet it would be interesting to qualify your statement by showing some instances in which they were worse than today's politicians.

Alexander Hamilton being shot by Aaron Burr.  But if matters of "honor" don't work for you, I strongly suggest you read some of the anonymous articles written by Jefferson and Hamilton and their supporters from about 1796 through 1804.  High minded principles were not all that were exchanged.

Their low esteem of the ignorant and stupid extended to a good deal of whites as well.

Yes.  But once again, they owned slaves.  Perhaps you can show me a slave owner in history who advocated a widespread franchise.  High minded principles can very easily be a way to preserve one's privilege and sustain an evil institution.

[Florestan]

Alexander Hamilton being shot by Aaron Burr.

Fair enough.

But if matters of "honor" don't work for you,

I consider myself an honorable man (within the inherent limitations and constitutive frailty of my human condition) but I don't see much "honor" in killing someone and the duel as such was one of the stupidest things that man ever thought of.

I strongly suggest you read some of the anonymous articles written by Jefferson and Hamilton and their supporters from about 1796 through 1804.

Are they online? I would really like to read them.

  High minded principles were not all that were exchanged.

In politics adhering blindly to high minded principles can often lead to disaster. It is in their name that the most heinous crimes have been committed. Actually, I'd rather have a corrupt politician in office than an idealist bent on making the world a better place for everybody.

Yes.  But once again, they owned slaves.  Perhaps you can show me a slave owner in history who advocated a widespread franchise.

Of course I can't and I am just as opposed to the institution of slavery as you are. It is one of those sins of the Western civilization that cry to Heaven for vengeance. But that was the mentality and practice of the time and all I can say is thanks God they are gone forever (or are they?). Now, do you happen to know how Jefferson or Washington or Hamilton or any other of the FF treated their slaves? Because I believe that, the intrinsic immorality of slavery notwithstanding, it is one thing to treat one's slaves in a gentle, patriarchal manner and quite another to brutalize them. Southern apologists claim that it is the former treatment that prevailed, while their enemies picture them as nasty brutes. I am not American and my sources of information are limited and biased. Could you please illuminate me as to what the truth was?

High minded principles can very easily be a way to preserve one's privilege and sustain an evil institution.

I do agree 100%.

[Todd]

Are they online? I would really like to read them.

I'm guessing at least some are.  I've read some, both complete and in excerpt form, in a variety of histories and biographies.  Granted, authors like to choose some of the harshest for publication.  For instance, Alexander Hamilton was routinely accused of being a secret (or not so secret) monarchist, one of the most loaded accusations of the day.

Now, do you happen to know how Jefferson or Washington or Hamilton or any other of the FF treated their slaves?

First off, it is unclear whether Hamilton owned slaves.  Ron Chernow, an obvious fan of the man, concluded that he did only briefly, whereas others contend he did not, and yet others say that his household servants were slaves.  As to some of the others, well let's see, Jefferson had many children with slaves, one slave in particular.  I'm sure the women could say no, so there's no way rape was involved.  I've not read large, detailed bios on him yet, but I'd be quite surprised if he were much different overall from Washington or Madison, both of whom allowed punishment of slaves for wayward behavior, and Washington was cold blooded and ruthless in hunting down escaped slaves on occasion.  They were his property, you see, and a great man such as himself could not let them go.  Washington was very mindful of his image, though, so if an overseer got too rough, he would put a stop to it.  To Washington's credit, he at least had the good sense to free his slaves when he died, though he could not free Martha's.  Yes, it was to burnish his image for posterity, but precious few men did it, just as precious few men gave up near absolute power not once, but twice.

Because I believe that, the intrinsic immorality of slavery notwithstanding, it is one thing to treat one's slaves in a gentle, patriarchal manner and quite another to brutalize them.

No offense, but this type of argument is appalling.  (I've seen others use it, I should note.)  There is no "gentle" slavery.  Slaves have no rights, no recourse at all to injustice, and by just those facts alone suffer immeasurably.  All slaves are brutalized by the very nature of the institution itself, whether or not the masters use whips or sticks.  Let me be unambiguously clear on this point: Slavery is irredeemably wicked and should be crushed out of existence wherever it is found.  I suggest reading Frederick Douglass' Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass for an unsanitized view of what slavery was about.

[Florestan]

For instance, Alexander Hamilton was routinely accused of being a secret (or not so secret) monarchist, one of the most loaded accusations of the day.

He seems to have been a man after my own heart. 

Let me be unambiguously clear on this point: Slavery is irredeemably wicked and should be crushed out of existence wherever it is found. 

I subscribe with my both hands (and feet  ) and I would like to point out that there was no argument from my part in favor of slavery. The fact that some slave owners treated them rather well is no excuse for the institution as such.

Thank you for the information on Jefferson and Washington.

To Washington's credit, he at least had the good sense to free his slaves when he died, though he could not free Martha's.  Yes, it was to burnish his image for posterity, but precious few men did it, just as precious few men gave up near absolute power not once, but twice.

I held him in high esteem precisely because he was able to overcame the limitations and prejudices of his time.

[Todd]

I held him in high esteem precisely because he was able to overcame the limitations and prejudices of his time.

Ironically, I suppose, I share George III's assessment of Washington: He was the greatest character of the age.

[Florestan]

Ironically, I suppose, I share George III's assessment of Washington: He was the greatest character of the age.

Why ironically? After all, George III was certainly not worse than some (most?) of his Continental contemporaries and in any case he was not the sanguinary despot one would think he was solely by reading the US Declaration of Independence. 

BTW, do you happen to know if Hamilton ever and openly expressed monarchist views?

[Todd]

Why ironically?

Because of my, well, anti-monarchist views. 

BTW, do you happen to know if Hamilton ever and openly expressed monarchist views?

Not strictly, but it's more complicated than that.  He didn't support establishing a monarchy in the European sense, but he was unabashedly in favor of a powerful central government and a powerful executive – more powerful than the Constitution ended up allowing for.  He was also a big supporter of, and beneficiary of, moneyed interests – he was a founder of the Bank of New York, for instance.  So, when he became Treasury Secretary for Washington, he pushed to establish the First Bank of the United States, supported some unpopular and supposedly dodgy debt repayment schemes, drafted the great reports on manufacturing and finance, and basically set up part of the framework of the Treasury which still exists today.  There were many who disliked or hated that, including traditional aristocrats (in the economic sense) like Jefferson.  Hamilton was also an arrogant and overtly ambitious man, so some of his foes argued that he was concentrating power in the federal government to consolidate power for his ultimate presidency.  That he was not a native born American didn't help with some.  (Hamilton is often given as the reason why the Constitution allowed for a non-native born president if he was born before the adoption of the document.)  I concede that Hamilton was most of the things his foes said, but he wasn't a monarchist.  He was basically an advocate for a modern state a hundred years or so before it started to appear.  Personally, I put in the same category qualitatively as Washington and Madison among the founders. Quantitatively, he outdid pretty much everyone in intellectual and policy output.

[Todd]

And qualitatively?

Personally, I put in the same category qualitatively as Washington and Madison among the founders.

[Florestan]

Personally, I put in the same category qualitatively as Washington and Madison among the founders.

Oops, I missed that. Sorry.

[Todd]

Back to the campaign:

Abandon ship!!!

[eyeresist]

Back to the campaign:

Abandon ship!!!

Former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty has resigned as a national co-chairman of Republican Mitt Romney's presidential campaign to lobby for Wall Street.

Sort of the opposite of a principled stand.


BTW, I note in the sidebar the headline "UNBELIEVABLE: Scientists Find Marijuana Can Stop Spread Of Cancer" -  this has been indicated in the literature going back at least ten years.

[Brian]

So now the news stories have started about Romney defending his campaign, telling reporters no turnaround is needed because everything is fine, and planning to join up with Paul Ryan to ease the burden on himself. Plus there's a lot of rumor about the competence of his campaign strategists. It all reminds me of how sports teams say they are fully confident in their coaches, right before firing them.

"I like being able to fire people..."

[Todd]

Not that it matters a great deal, but I must say that I can't recall seeing any Romney bumper stickers in these parts.

[Concord]

Pollsters have added a new category of respondents to their data on the presidential race. The good news is that in Pennsylvania, Obama is leading not only among "likely voters," but also in the new category, "people Republicans might allow to vote."  0:)